9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hnologies India Pvt. Ltd., the appellant in the present case. In as much as these services have been rendered to the appellant s SEZ unit as well as are covered in the approved list of services, I find no justification for denial of the refund. Refund claim - invoices issued by CHA do not show the service tax paid by the service providers engaged by them - Held that:- I find that the claim of refund of service tax made under such invoices by the CHA has been denied by the authorities below for the reason that the invoices issued by the service provider, i.e. CHA, do not indicate the full amount of service tax. However, it is evident that all the service providers engaged by the CHA have all render service on account of the appellant SEZ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Notification No. 40/2012-ST dated 20/6/2012, made during the period October 2011 to December 2012. The Original Authority vide his order dated 24/12/13 rejected a part of the claims made by the appellant to the extent of ₹ 3,31,549/- in respect of the following services :- S. No. Service Amount (Rs.) Issue 1. CHA services 1,55,243 The invoices issued by the service provider do not show charging of any Service Tax. 2. Professional services (Chartered Accountant) 87,503/- These services are not covered in the list of approved servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... An amount of ₹ 1,55,243/- have been disallowed under the claim for CHA services for the reason that the invoices issued by the service provider do not show charging of any service tax. They have submitted in this regard that the CHA in turn has made use of several service providers who have all rendered service in favour of the appellant unit. The invoices issued by these service providers also clearly show that these services have been rendered to the SEZ unit. The CHA only acted as a direct agent who engaged and paid for the services and in turn collected the payment from the appellant. They have also placed reliance on the following case laws to support their arguments : (i) Sopariwala Exports vs. CST, Mumbai I reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to payment of service tax. To operationalize these provisions, various notifications have been issued from time to time providing for claiming of refund by the SEZ units and developers from the Jurisdictional Authorities. The present dispute is with reference to the Notification No. 40/2012-ST dated 20/6/2012 which prescribed the procedure for claim of these refunds and the conditions under which it should be granted. The notification broadly prescribes that refund of service tax shall be paid for services received by the unit or developer of the SEZ provided that the services are consumed within the SEZ. The services for which refund shall be paid are those which are approved by the Jurisdictional Development Commissioner of the Special Ec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es rendered in favour of the appellant and indicates payment of service tax to the extent of ₹ 797/-. The original invoice issued by M/s UPS is also accompanied by a few other invoices issued by various service providers on account of the appellant clearly indicating the service tax paid thereon. I find that the claim of refund of service tax made under such invoices by the CHA has been denied by the authorities below for the reason that the invoices issued by the service provider, i.e. CHA, do not indicate the full amount of service tax. However, it is evident that all the service providers engaged by the CHA have all render service on account of the appellant SEZ unit. I find that similar issues have come up before the Tribunal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... number. The invoice number is also mentioned in the Shipping bill which can facilitate correlation of the goods with the bill submitted by the appellant. Moreover Tribunal in case of Trident Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2012 (28) S.T.R. 505 (Tri.-Del.) has held that in respect of Rail Freight mentioning of container number reasonably establishes that service was in respect of export of the service and there is no reason to deny the refund on the ground that the invoices were not issued by service provider. In view of the above, appellants are eligible for the refund of the Service Tax paid by them under the Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. I set aside the Order-in-Appeal and allow the appeal . The above decision has been rendered i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
